This is the The Hindu editorial of 20.3.2010:
Behind the plea bargain of Headley
Date:20/03/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/20/stories/2010032056461200.htm
Opinion - Editorials
Behind Headley's plea bargain
Five years after he began the surveillance operation that finally guided a ten-man death squad through the streets of Mumbai in November, 2008, Pakistani-American jihadist David Headley has entered into a plea bargain with U.S. prosecutors. In India, the deal has provoked media outrage but careful study of the Plea Agreement (accessible under Resources at beta.thehindu.com) shows that claims that Headley has got off lightly are misplaced. Plea bargains in the United States work around a complex points system set up by the United States Sentencing Commission. In return for pleading guilty to all the 12 terrorism-related charges, and for meeting specified obligations for cooperation with investigators, prosecutors will recommend a reduction in sentence. In essence, Headley will avoid facing the death penalty and will not be extradited to India, Pakistan, or Denmark. However, the judge hearing the case is not bound by the sentencing recommendations — and if they are rejected, Headley will not be able to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor, unlike an approver in an Indian criminal trial, will he be granted a pardon in return for giving state's evidence. Some commentators have speculated that the Plea Agreement means Headley was a secret U.S. agent. The truth is that the U.S. repeatedly passed on substantial intelligence to India of the looming threat to Mumbai in the months before 26/11. Had Headley been the source of those warnings, he would be in the process of receiving a medal — not life in prison.
Just what has Headley — who made a similar plea bargain earlier in his troubled life, in connection with a narcotics-trafficking prosecution — promised in return for his life? Paragraph 12 of the Plea Agreement states that he will, when directed to do so by the U.S. Attorney's office, “fully and truthfully participate in any debriefings for the purpose of gathering intelligence or national security information.” In addition, he will “fully and truthfully testify in foreign judicial proceedings held in the United States, videoconferencing or letters rogatory.” This means he will have no choice but to testify in the ongoing trial of Mumbai attack suspects if called on to do so by Maharashtra prosecutors. He must also cooperate in any future criminal proceedings initiated by the National Investigations Agency on the Lashkar-e-Taiba's plot to attack the National Defence College in New Delhi. Further, Headley has agreed to “the postponement of his sentencing until after the conclusion of his cooperation.” Paragraph 8 of the Plea Agreement reveals that he has already “provided substantial assistance to the criminal investigation, and also has provided information of significant intelligence value.” This cooperation should strengthen the case against his co-accused, Tahawwur Rana, as well as key Lashkar operatives in Pakistan. Barring death-penalty enthusiasts, no one has any reason to bemoan the Plea Agreement. India's investigators and justice system must move quickly to capitalise on Headley's intelligence and testimony.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu.
In appreciation, I sent the following to The Hindu's Letters Editor on 21.3.2010:
Sir,
The editorial, Behind Headley's plea bargain (20 March), must have made The Hindu’s committed readers happy about their commitment. When most of the English media, print as well as TV, were wildly speculating about a secret deal between the US prosecution and Headley, and were dubbing the plea agreement as a ruse, beside other things, to prevent his interrogation by India, The Hindu showed extreme restraint and circumspection. Actually, the prospect of not giving Headley death penalty should help the Indian cause as he would now live and be available to answer under oath India’s questions.
This is the kind of editorials that will enhance the reputation of The Hindu as an independent, thoughtful and responsible newspaper.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Hindu errs!
The following letter I sent to The Readers' Editor of The Hindu on 10th Mar. 2010:
The Hindu carried the article ‘UPA fails to pull through Women's Bill in Upper House’ by Gargi Parsai on Tuesday, Mar 09, 2010, which claimed that SP and RJD had withdrawn support to the UPA government. This is what it said:
“On a day of fast moving developments, the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal withdrew support to the government, and its leaders met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee, while the Bill itself was deferred to Tuesday.”
The fact, as reported by other newspapers and news channels, was that on the 8th the two Yadavs had only decided to withdraw support, which is not the same as withdrawing support. To use The Hindu’s own terminology, they had only “threatened” to withdraw support.
But, instead of correcting the error next day, The Hindu carried the headline: “Lalu withdraws support”. The text of the news, however, was correct: “Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad on Tuesday announced his decision to formally withdraw support to the government….
Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh, who too had threatened to do so, however, was evasive on the issue. When journalists persisted with their questions, he said he would inform the media when he took a decision in this regard. Mr. Prasad said he would call on President Pratibha Patil and submit his letter to her on Wednesday”.
How on earth did this mixup occur?
The Hindu carried the article ‘UPA fails to pull through Women's Bill in Upper House’ by Gargi Parsai on Tuesday, Mar 09, 2010, which claimed that SP and RJD had withdrawn support to the UPA government. This is what it said:
“On a day of fast moving developments, the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal withdrew support to the government, and its leaders met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee, while the Bill itself was deferred to Tuesday.”
The fact, as reported by other newspapers and news channels, was that on the 8th the two Yadavs had only decided to withdraw support, which is not the same as withdrawing support. To use The Hindu’s own terminology, they had only “threatened” to withdraw support.
But, instead of correcting the error next day, The Hindu carried the headline: “Lalu withdraws support”. The text of the news, however, was correct: “Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad on Tuesday announced his decision to formally withdraw support to the government….
Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh, who too had threatened to do so, however, was evasive on the issue. When journalists persisted with their questions, he said he would inform the media when he took a decision in this regard. Mr. Prasad said he would call on President Pratibha Patil and submit his letter to her on Wednesday”.
How on earth did this mixup occur?
Friday, March 05, 2010
Ideology of the CPI (Maoists) and Arundhati Roy
The following letter I sent to The Hindu Letters to the Editor on 6.3.2010. The next letters day is on the 8th.
The news item in The Hindu was:
Ideology can't be wiped out by attacking tribals: Arundhati Roy
Manisha Jha
NEW DELHI: Dubbing the Centre's talk of ceasefire and talks with naxals “non-serious,” members of democratic and civil rights organisations on Friday demanded that the state stop the military offensive, Operation Greenhunt, “against its own people” and initiate back-channel talks with the CPI (Maoist).
Addressing a press conference here, writer and human rights activist Arundhati Roy said: “The government's use of the military to solve political problems is not new. The government has long since followed a policy of extermination against the Maoist movement. But each time the movement has come back stronger and better organised as it is not the people but an ideology under attack and this ideology cannot be wiped out by attacking tribals in the name of defeating Maoism. Moreover, considering the fact that no one has defined the word ‘Maoist', if the government talks of wiping them out, then it refers to a genocidal language where it could be dispensing with lakhs of people who are anyway fragile and on the brink of survival.”
Ms. Roy said: “We are in a situation wherein corporatisation of natural resources such as coal and iron ore has led to scandals galore and it is this money which can buy governments, elections, courts and media, making our democracy the best democracy that money can buy today. Despite a large number of farmer suicides and a majority of the population living below poverty line, we have the most expensive elections in the world and the money for the same comes from the iron ores of Karnataka and Chhattisgarh and bauxite in Orissa which is then is used to cleverly subvert democracy and wage war against its own people.”
Sumit Chakravartty, Editor, Mainstream magazine, said: “The Union government has undertaken the task of launching a full-scale war against the indigenous tribal population in the vast tribal heartlands. The most important thing for talks to be successful between the CPI (Maoist) and the government is that it has to be a mutual affair of cessation of hostilities. It cannot be one-sided. While asking the Maoists to abjure violence, the Centre should also do the same and initiate back-channel talks, but so far this seriousness and initiative on the part of the government has been lacking.”
Alluding to the treatment meted out to social activists working in naxal-affected areas in Chhattisgarh, he said: “The government's allegation that the Maoists are not allowing development works to take place is hollow because if that was true, then why would civil society and voluntary organisation representatives working for the uplift of the Maoists be targeted? Since the government is not interested in the development of tribals, a large number of them have joined the Maoists as it is a question of survival for them.”
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Sir,
One cannot agree more with Arundhati Roy in her assessment of the present Indian democracy and the State. But her demand to stop the Operation Greenhunt against the CPI (Maoist) is baffling. Assuming that the ideology Roy refers to is a programme to install a people’s government after overthrowing the present State through a relentless and protracted armed struggle, one may wonder how it can ever propose a ceasefire except as part of a strategy. Is Roy a partisan to this strategy? Or is she romanticizing the Maoist violence as mere acts of ‘innocent savages’?
The news item in The Hindu was:
Ideology can't be wiped out by attacking tribals: Arundhati Roy
Manisha Jha
NEW DELHI: Dubbing the Centre's talk of ceasefire and talks with naxals “non-serious,” members of democratic and civil rights organisations on Friday demanded that the state stop the military offensive, Operation Greenhunt, “against its own people” and initiate back-channel talks with the CPI (Maoist).
Addressing a press conference here, writer and human rights activist Arundhati Roy said: “The government's use of the military to solve political problems is not new. The government has long since followed a policy of extermination against the Maoist movement. But each time the movement has come back stronger and better organised as it is not the people but an ideology under attack and this ideology cannot be wiped out by attacking tribals in the name of defeating Maoism. Moreover, considering the fact that no one has defined the word ‘Maoist', if the government talks of wiping them out, then it refers to a genocidal language where it could be dispensing with lakhs of people who are anyway fragile and on the brink of survival.”
Ms. Roy said: “We are in a situation wherein corporatisation of natural resources such as coal and iron ore has led to scandals galore and it is this money which can buy governments, elections, courts and media, making our democracy the best democracy that money can buy today. Despite a large number of farmer suicides and a majority of the population living below poverty line, we have the most expensive elections in the world and the money for the same comes from the iron ores of Karnataka and Chhattisgarh and bauxite in Orissa which is then is used to cleverly subvert democracy and wage war against its own people.”
Sumit Chakravartty, Editor, Mainstream magazine, said: “The Union government has undertaken the task of launching a full-scale war against the indigenous tribal population in the vast tribal heartlands. The most important thing for talks to be successful between the CPI (Maoist) and the government is that it has to be a mutual affair of cessation of hostilities. It cannot be one-sided. While asking the Maoists to abjure violence, the Centre should also do the same and initiate back-channel talks, but so far this seriousness and initiative on the part of the government has been lacking.”
Alluding to the treatment meted out to social activists working in naxal-affected areas in Chhattisgarh, he said: “The government's allegation that the Maoists are not allowing development works to take place is hollow because if that was true, then why would civil society and voluntary organisation representatives working for the uplift of the Maoists be targeted? Since the government is not interested in the development of tribals, a large number of them have joined the Maoists as it is a question of survival for them.”
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Sir,
One cannot agree more with Arundhati Roy in her assessment of the present Indian democracy and the State. But her demand to stop the Operation Greenhunt against the CPI (Maoist) is baffling. Assuming that the ideology Roy refers to is a programme to install a people’s government after overthrowing the present State through a relentless and protracted armed struggle, one may wonder how it can ever propose a ceasefire except as part of a strategy. Is Roy a partisan to this strategy? Or is she romanticizing the Maoist violence as mere acts of ‘innocent savages’?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)